"Samsung has now filed an unredacted version of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and/or remittitur. That's the one that was originally filed with a redacted section we figured out was about the foreman, Velvin Hogan. The judge ordered it filed unsealed, and so now we get to read all about it. It's pretty shocking to see the full story. I understand now why Samsung tried to seal it. They call Mr. Hogan untruthful in voir dire (and I gather in media interviews too), accuse him of 'implied bias' and of tainting the process by introducing extraneous 'evidence' of his own during jury deliberations, all of which calls, Samsung writes, for an evidentiary hearing and a new trial with an unbiased jury as the cure." It's a treasure trove of courtroom drama, this. Like this one: Hogan got sued by his former employer Seagate in 1993, causing him to go bankrupt. The lawyer in said case is now married to one of the partners of the law firm representing Samsung in this case. Samsung seems to implicitly - and sometimes explicitly - argue that Hogan had a score to settle in this case, because - get this - Samsung has been Seagate's largest shareholder since last year. Hogan failed to disclose the Seagate lawsuit during voire dire, which is a pretty serious matter. No matter whose side you're on, this is John Grisham-worthy.

Does anybody honestly think that any of this stuff about this juror made any difference to the trials outcome?

The fact of the matter, unless one's perception is clouded by prejudice, is that there was a lot of evidence that clearly favoured Apple. There was ample evidence that Samsung had explicitly discussed, planned and implemented a deliberate strategy of mimicking Apple and Apple's products, and that partners such as Google as well as internal Samsung managers had raised concerns about that strategy.

Some people reacted to the verdict as if it was perverse but frankly most such people would have reacted in the same way to that verdict no mater what volume or quality of evidence supporting Apple had been presented. A lot of the reaction to the verdict was not based on a rational and objective analysis but started from the premise that any win by Apple was wrong no matter the circumstances.

This issue raised by Samsung may or may not do them any good, the verdict may or may not be overturned as a result, but we should be under no illusions, this is just a clever wheeze by Samsung's lawyers to get the clients off. That is what clever lawyers do and that is the way the system works. But whatever the outcome the trial revealed, through the evidence it made public, that Apple were right to assert that Samsung had copied their products. One may have an opinion about what Samsung did and whether it was right or wrong, but the facts are not really in dispute anymore.

Does anybody honestly think that any of this stuff about this juror made any difference to the trials outcome?

The question here isn't the correctness of the conclusion, but its reliability. If there were procedural errors along the way (as seems to be the case), then the outcome of the case cannot be relied upon and it should be retried.

The fact of the matter, unless one's perception is clouded by prejudice, is that there was a lot of evidence that clearly favoured Apple. There was ample evidence that Samsung had explicitly discussed, planned and implemented a deliberate strategy of mimicking Apple and Apple's products, and that partners such as Google as well as internal Samsung managers had raised concerns about that strategy.

If you dig deep enough, you can find dirt about anybody on nearly any topic. Now I'm not claiming Samsung or Google are innocent here, all I'm saying is that I'm unsure about whether the jury's verdict was arrived at via due process.

Another fact of the matter, that even you must admit to, is the fact that Apple didn't re-invent the phone, no matter how much they claim to. Much of the tech existed before and Apple simply found a nicer way to market it. That is not to say that they haven't contributed anything, but I simply think that what they have contributed doesn't warrant such wide protection as they claim they deserve.

But whatever the outcome the trial revealed, through the evidence it made public, that Apple were right to assert that Samsung had copied their products. One may have an opinion about what Samsung did and whether it was right or wrong, but the facts are not really in dispute anymore.

People copy all the time from each other, that's how culture and technology advances. We all stand on the shoulders of those that went before us. The larger question in most people's minds about this trial (in general) is whether protecting monopolies on some rather vague ideas is going to help advance society or not.

You're the most religious Apple fanboi on this site, and accuse others of being clouded by prejudice. Funny.

The evidence from the trial revealed that the juror made fraudulent claims (new CPU arch: invention), misleading the jury, and that some products were banned although they were not shown to infringe (one of which was recently overturned). The only thing the trial revealed was that it was a mistrial.

Does anybody honestly think that any of this stuff about this juror made any difference to the trials outcome?

If you even had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you wouldn't ask such a ridiculous question.

Quite often cases are won or lost primarily on the choices of the jury. Some individuals are more susceptible to some arguments than others are (e.g. you have a clear bias towards Apple so are more susceptible to arguments like "Apple invented all forms of prior art"). So the lawyers profile the potential jurors and try to select the best candidates for their case.

In this instance, Samsung majorly dropped the ball by not vetoing Hogan. The moment they knew he had a patent, they should have dismissed him as existing patent holders are more likely to be sympathetic with other patent holders than those accused of IP 'theft'.

However the problems didn't end there. Hogan went above and beyond the call of duty - he pretty much dictated how the other jurors should vote (OK, he didn't force them into voting a specific way, but his guidance was a massive influence for their decision).

This alone undermines the whole process of having a jury, but what's worse is that Hogan has prior history (re: the past trial) that gives him clear motivation for a vendetta vote instead of one decided impartially and based upon review of the evidence provided from both parties.

So not only do you have a potentially corrupt juror, but one that also influenced the rest of the jury to vote the same way he had and thus push through an unjust result.

To any sane person (read: anyone not blinded by their own Apple fanaticism), that would agree that this was a clear cut case of an unfair trial; a trial mislead by a single juror with a personal agenda.

So the real question is, does Samsung have enough of a case to get granted a retrial?